The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning
Open accessAbstract
Teacher practices are essential for supporting students in scientific inquiry practices, such as the construction of scientific explanations. In this study, we examine what instructional practices teachers engage in when they introduce scientific explanation and whether these practices influence students' ability to construct scientific explanations during a middle school chemistry unit. Thirteen teachers enacted a project‐based chemistry unit, How can I make new stuff from old stuff?, with 1197 seventh grade students. We videotaped each teacher's enactment of the focal lesson on scientific explanation and then coded the videotape for four different instructional practices: modeling scientific explanation, making the rationale of scientific explanation explicit, defining scientific explanation, and connecting scientific explanation to everyday explanation. Our results suggest that when teachers introduce scientific explanation, they vary in the practices they engage in as well as the quality of their use of these practices. We also found that teachers' use of instructional practices can influence student learning of scientific explanation and that the effect of these instructional practices depends on the context in terms of what other instructional practices the teacher uses. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 53–78, 2008
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
“Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project‐based science
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.1014 · Cited by 381
Cited by
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 · Cited by 798
Self-citationScientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20438 · Cited by 366
Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20449 · Cited by 351
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Science Teacher Education · doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2 · Cited by 342
Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development
Oliveira, A. W. (2010) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20345 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-31
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-78
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2101219334
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 39.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.